OliveTapenade
No bio...
User ID: 1729
OliveTapenade
21hr ago
It's not a Roman salute, at any rate - the arm is flat in a true Roman salute.
I buy that he was trying to do a "my heart goes out to you" gesture, if only because I can't believe that even Elon Musk is dumb enough to try to do a Nazi or a Roman salute in public.
OliveTapenade
1d ago
I suppose Australia counts as a 'nice state' from this perspective? I certainly like living here, more than I did in parts of the US.
OliveTapenade
2d ago
I had a listen to the interview and didn't find myself feeling particularly illuminated - the interviewer in particular struck me as inadequate for this particular task.
There's a tension between two responsibilities an interviewer has, to be fair to him. On the one hand, an interviewer ought to invite their subject to articulate and reveal their perspective as clearly as possible. On the other hand, an interviewer ought to provoke and hold to account - an interviewer shouldn't be a pushover, but should judiciously apply pressure to draw out the challenges and contradictions of the subject's worldview.
Marchese, here, seemed inadequate to either task. He was unable to meaningfully engage with or critique much of what Yarvin said, and evidently was not familiar with the history Yarvin regularly alluded to, and rather than either get Yarvin to expand on genuinely interesting subjects or challenge Yarvin where his viewpoint is weak, Marchese came off as flailing around for attack lines. Several times, I thought, just as the conversation might be getting interesting, Marchese realised he was on weak ground and tried to pivot to a subject where he thought he could gotcha Yarvin.
It all just came off as very superficial to me. Marchese did not understand Yarvin's ideas very well and struggled to engage with them, especially when his prepared gotchas didn't land.
I'm not particularly on Yarvin's side as an intellectual, and there are plenty of effective ways to criticise him, but Marchese was just, well, bad.
OliveTapenade
3d ago
Yes, I've read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or do you mean some other text?
OliveTapenade
3d ago
He does. There is a single character, Eöl, who is known as the Dark Elf, and a broader category, the Moriquendi (lit. 'Elves of Darkness' or 'Dark Elves').
In neither case does Tolkien mean anything like Dark Elves or Drow in the modern, D&D-influenced sense. The Moriquendi are merely those elves who never went to Valinor and saw the light of the Two Trees. (Those are the Calaquendi, or Elves of Light.) But there is no implied biological distinction, and certainly no moral distinction. For instance, Legolas is a Moriquendi, despite being probably the most famous example of the later Wood Elf archetype. The vast majority of elves are Moriquendi.
I wouldn't say Tolkien has Dark Elves in the D&D sense of an elven kindred who are evil. Tolkien is generally quite careful to avoid elves like that - there are plenty of morally flawed elves, but elves never side with Morgoth or Sauron, ever.
At any rate, none of this makes Yarvin's fantasy metaphor any less cringeworthy, though I suppose that is an aesthetic judgement, so make of it what you will.
OliveTapenade
4d ago
There's a motte and bailey on the subject - on the one hand it's perfectly true that Jews often do things in the interests of Jews. Everybody occasionally does things in the interests of groups to which they belong, so it's utterly unsurprising that, for instance, Jews tend to be quite pro-Israel, or that Jews are more committed to fighting anti-semitism than non Jews, or that Jews are more invested in Holocause remembrance.
On the other hand, what SS usually argues goes a long way beyond that, to the point of holding that Jews are a uniquely diabolical race of manipulators who infiltrate and control other societies.
The practical upshot, I would argue, is that you should automatically disregard anything that SS says that involves Jews, and because practically everything he posts is about Jews, that means you should ignore most of what he says full stop. I realise that sounds pretty harsh, but he is a very focused poster.
OliveTapenade
5d ago
I've noticed weird changes in the way that it's framed, actually?
Consider this story from 2017. (This is 'black' in the sense of Aboriginal, which has never made sense to me, since that is a completely different ethnic, racial, and cultural group to black Africans.) Along similar lines, here's more on this so-called 'blerd' movement.
This is strange partly because it erases a history - as you say, there have always been black nerds, who seem to have mixed with other nerds in very normal and boring ways. Instead the idea of being a nerd who is also black is being shifted or ignored by identity entrepreneurs who see opportunity in claiming the label for themselves.
OliveTapenade
5d ago
Well, just on its own merits it's hopelessly arbitrary, right? 'Global majority' just means 'non-X'. Non-whites are a global majority compared to whites, yes, but then... so what? Non-blacks are also a global majority compared to blacks. No racial or cultural group constitutes a majority by itself.
(Unless you count 'Asians' as a single group. If you count South, Southeast, and East Asians as the same group, combined they do form a majority. However, I'd argue that any scheme that says that Indians and Chinese are the same race is badly flawed.)
I'd say they should just say 'non-white', 'non-European', or 'non-native-British', but perhaps that makes it too clear what the intent is.
OliveTapenade
7d ago
If you're asking me, my guess is that:
- Not every celebrity is like this, but a significant proportion are, and that proportion is much too large for anybody to feel comfortable. You should not feel confident that your favourite celebrity is an exception.
- This is true of both male and female celebrities. In general you should assign a high probability to the thesis that any given celebrity is an awful person in private. That said, I theorise that sexual misconduct specifically, at least in the sexpest sense, skews heavily male among celebrities, just as it does in wider society.
- This is in part due to selection effects. Celebrities aren't a random selection of the populace, but rather are skewed heavily towards certain personality types and ambitions. I confidently theorise that celebrities, on average, rate higher on Dark Triad personality traits than the general populace.
- That said it is also due to the corruption of power; or as you put it, because everyone has a lot of darkness in their hearts, and we are restrained by social pressure and lack of opportunity as much as by morality. We should not be confident that we would act better.
From here on I'm going to get more religious, so you may wish to disregard the following if you have a more secular mindset:
The conclusion I draw from these observations, personally, is to be very aware of the depth and temptation of human sin, to show mercy even to those who seem like great sinners to me, and to be aware of and do my best to fight against my own inclination to sin. I very much hope that I'm not as bad as some of those public figures I'm aware of, but it would be foolish of me to be confident in that, so this is another reminder for me to repent and seek a conversion of the heart.
As mentioned, I think disordered sexual behaviour is a more common manifestation of the inner sinful nature among men. I don't think it's entirely absent among women, but I think it's probably more common for women to engage in different types of sin. Both sexes, however, stand very much condemned by their own inward natures and desires. So I don't see any final moral advantage, as it were, for women over men, nor for men over women.
OliveTapenade
7d ago
I think the distinction that comes most naturally to mind for me is that a sexpest is someone who aggressively pesters others for sex, and a slut is a person who rapidly or unhesitatingly gives in to such pestering. They're complementary, I suppose?
OliveTapenade
7d ago
Ah, to be clear, I'm using 'sexpest' mainly just to mean 'aggressively promiscuous person'. It doesn't imply non-consent for me. I like it as a gender-neutral alternative to 'slut', I suppose? It also implies actively seeking out or badgering others for sex, and that also sounds like Gaiman. This is enough for me to morally condemn Gaiman.
But this was known already, and I'm not sure what Gaiman's case specifically, or the vagaries of whether he gets cancelled or not, tells us about either the broad issue of sexual ethics, or even that much about the moment. Gaiman is an ageing white man who's also, at best, what we used to call a dirty old man. He seems potentially vulnerable to cancellation, but then, cancellation has never had a 100% hit rate, so it could go either way.
So I think I'm with 4bpp in terms of what we can draw from Gaiman's case, even if I suspect we differ on overall sexual ethics. There's just a limit to how much can be inferred from any one case.
OliveTapenade
7d ago
Forgive my naivete here, but I'm not really sure what the story here is, beyond "Neil Gaiman is a creepy sexpest."
Well, yes, and I will happily join in with condemning his sordid exploits. Promiscuity is bad and this seems quite a straightforward example. I'm just wondering what particular light is shed by this specific case?
OliveTapenade
14d ago
I think Zelensky is trying to obtain as many effective weapons for Ukraine as possible, and he is behaving to try to maximise that. Would a more grovelling approach achieve more of his aims, or would it just be better for your ego?
The way I see it, he's using all the influence he has to try to get as many weapons as he can, and I struggle to see why he should choose a less effective strategy. If you think Western leaders ought to drag him across the coals a bit more, blame them, not Zelensky himself. Blame the people setting the price, not the one grabbing the bargains while he can.
OliveTapenade
14d ago
The Sikhs are generally quite unhappy towards both Hindus and the concept of India as a nation. I've met diaspora Sikhs in Australia and a complaint that regularly comes up is that at partition, the British gave the Hindus a nation, and they gave the Muslims a nation, but the Sikhs were screwed out of one, and Sikhs view themselves as just as important and respectable as Hindus or Muslims.
As such, Sikh separatism has been ongoing since before independence, and has at times led to insurgent or terrorist movements. The Sikhs have a strong internal feeling that they are not the same as Hindus or Muslims, and the more that Indian nationalism comes to be identified with Hindu nationalism, as it is at the moment, the alienated the Sikhs feel.
I would be entirely unsurprised to find some diaspora Sikh on the internet engaged in vicious anti-Indian ranting.
OliveTapenade
15d ago
I remember it was posted here a while back, and I think my response is still what it was back then - that misleading vivedness remains a fallacy. I knew long before this film that it would be possible to find an hour or two of footage of Indians behaving disgustingly. I am pretty sure that's true for every nationality on Earth. So in that sense the film offers no new information at all and I should not update based on it.
OliveTapenade
15d ago
Is he not behaving like a beggar? He's spent the last few years asking for, campaigning for, and I would say begging, for aid. He knows that Ukraine's chances in the war depend on Western aid, and he has acted accordingly, investing a huge amount of time and effort in visiting Western countries and making the case for more aid as strongly as he can.
How should he behave? Do you think he should be more self-abasing? Why? Would that help? I suspect most Western countries would rather deliver aid to an ally that seems, though in need of assistance, nonetheless committed to the fight and strong of will.
OliveTapenade
18d ago
It does read rather like a dismayed realisation that the Motte is what the Motte has always, explicitly, advertised itself as being - a discussion and debate club, and explicitly not a place to recruit for any given cause.
OliveTapenade
19d ago
Wasn't it always an echo chamber of a small fraction of the public?
OliveTapenade
22d ago
No, that's the etymological origin of 'vulgar'. The meaning of a word is not reducible to its etymology. That's called the etymological fallacy.
Have lower or peasant classes been consistently crude, blunt, or offensive in the way they talk about sex, relatively to middle or upper classes? It would not surprise me - if nothing else I think the lower class, almost definitionally, does not speak in the way the upper class considers polite - but it would be nice to have actual data to go on.
OliveTapenade
22d ago
I suppose there's a case you could make that delicacy around sex is an affectation of the middle (and upper?) class(es?), and the lower classes/peasants/proles have always been quite vulgar? It's certainly the sort of thing that could be true, though I'd like a bit more of a survey before I conclude that it is.
OliveTapenade
22d ago
Oh, I'm with you entirely on finding it gross, and I think there has been a pornographic shift in the way we think about sexuality, desire, and human reproduction. There's probably an essay there to write one day, but I might save it up and do it in a top-level comment one day. The death of the concept of normality, or the concept of what is natural?
OliveTapenade
22d ago
I know my preference would be for the Motte to be at least a little more proper than 4chan...
OliveTapenade
23d ago
Most people have a concept of propriety, and most people understand that words have contextual or connotative meanings beyond the literal, physical act which they denote. "Make love", "have sex", and "fuck" all refer to the same action in a broad sense, but they obviously have very different meanings when you come across them in the wild.
Likewise, "I would like to have a child with your daughter", "I would like to breed your daughter", and "I would like to creampie your daughter" may all indicate that the person would like to have vaginal sex with the daughter in a way that's open to the possibility of conception and pregnancy, but obviously the connotations are very different.
Lewis2 is correct here - 'creampie' specifically is pornographic slang. It's contextually inappropriate because it communicates disrespect. Botond173 made an edgy and offensive joke.
Maybe you like edgy jokes, and if so that's fine for you, but pretending that it's not clear why someone might object is silly.
OliveTapenade
26d ago
Are you sure? Jesus constantly recommends moral action, but I'd say that even in the synoptics, there seems to be an awareness that this by itself is insufficient? Take, for instance Matthew 19:16-27 (which is triple tradition, cf. Mark 10:17-31, Luke 17:18-30). It seems as though in those passages Jesus presents an impossibly difficult moral demand, the disciples wonder at how salvation may be possible, and Jesus says that it comes only through the action of God. He then goes on to reassure them that everyone who has followed him will be saved.
I find it hard to fit a passage like that into a model that says that Jesus was preaching salvation through good works. Jesus evidently thinks that good works are good, and that people should do them, but they do not seem to be sufficient for him. Some divine action seems to be necessary to bridge the gap between human moral effort and salvation.
See also passages like Luke 7:36-49, in which Jesus appears to suggest that a sinful woman has been forgiven on the basis of her great faith, rather than because of any meritorious work of righteousness in the world.
This story also seems reminiscent of the Anointing at Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9), where the disciples protest at an extravagant sign of faith on the basis that the money could have been more efficiently allocated to the poor. Jesus chastises them and seems to approve of the woman's display of faith. (Take that, effective altruists?) Again it seems like for Jesus there is more to righteousness or salvation than the corporal works of mercy.
You may not count the epilogue to Mark as original to the gospel, and you may discount post-Resurrection appearances, but Mark 16:16 is also a statement directly attributed to Jesus saying that those who believe will be saved. You might also consider Matthew 10:8 ("You received without payment; give without payment") as relevant to Jesus' understanding of how divine favour operates?
It's true that in the synoptics Jesus never says in so many words "salvation is by grace", but there is enough, I think, to say that for Jesus salvation is something that involves both a kind of unilateral divine action, reaching out to sinful humankind, and the faithful human response to that action. The language of grace appears elsewhere. But I think it's plausible enough to see that language as an attempt to faithfully articulate a real feature of the teachings and actions of Jesus in his life.
Don't people refer to the Secret Service as the SS, at least in contexts where the referent is clear?
More options
Context Copy link